Revision as of 04:15, August 6, 2008

Contents

Rustler

I appreciate you letting me know about this, however please don't argue on encyclopaedia pages. The articles are supposed to contain basic fact and description, not disguised arguments or "please look at this". If you disagree with another editor, that doesn't automatically make you right and him wrong. If you disagree, discuss it on the talk page, instead of just editing and re-editing the page.

I have edited the article to say it could be either the Mustang or the Hawker, and I request that this is NOT changed until you are both in agreement. I strongly suggest you start a discussion on the talk page, and include an image of both planes, so that it can be agreed. Do not edit the page until you are in agreement. If you never agree, then leave the page as it is. If you have any other issues, please discuss them on my talk page or on IRC. Thanks - Gboyerstalk 16:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I just shortened the article to remove opinion. I asked you to leave both possible planes there until we were all in agreement, yet you still remove the one you believe is wrong. I have now locked that article to prevent this argument continuing on that page. Let me point out the issue here: you may be absolutely sure it is a Mustang, but he is also absolutely sure it is a Tempest. How do I know who is right just from that? Please discuss the article on Talk:Rustler, and include images for that side-by-side comparison you mentioned. Then I will decide which one to display on the article, or whether to leave both to prevent this fight. Gboyerstalk 16:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a little comment

Hi, Sukhoi-35BM, and welcome to Grand Theft Wiki! First of all, I'd like to thank you for all the hard work you've put in here in our community in the last couple of months. However, I feel as though I need to explain the way our wiki works. There is no section that belongs to any editor, and telling another editor to "lay off" a particular section is not good etiquette. If an editor makes an edit that you disagree with, the appropriate course of action is to begin a dialog on the talk page of that article, rather than sending the editor a message claiming that the entire section belongs to you. This wiki is a collaborative effort, so although you may have extensive "knowledge on the subject", it is in bad taste to disregard another editor's efforts to improve the wiki. In the future, please try to have a civil conversation in response to disagreements. We appreciate all efforts by all editors; however, claiming ownership of specific articles or sections is something that will not be tolerated. Once again, thanks for all your hard work, and most importantly, have fun! --GuildKnightTalk2me 22:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

I hate to have to do this, but you have given me no other option. Eganio is one of the Administrators on this wiki, so it is his responsibility to tell people "how to act". If you are acting inappropriately, it is within his rights to correct you, and being an admin, he is actually expected to do so. This account will now be blocked for the next 3 days. When this block expires, I expect you to adjust your behavior to be respectful to all other editors. Please consider enhancing not only the content of this wiki, but the community that helps to build it. --GuildKnightTalk2me 00:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

In response to your e-mail

To address your concerns:

"I was banned without warning?":

I'm sorry, but you were warned. Specifically, I stated in my first comment above "please try to have a civil conversation in response to disagreements." It was after this that you once again acted in a disrespectful manner. The problem wasn't just that you acted this way toward an Administrator, but that you acted this way at all. Normally your statement would not be dealt with in such a way; it was the escalating disregard for two separate administrators' suggestions that you settle disagreements in a civil manner that necessitated a block. The block is only effective for 3 days; it will expire at (or around) 00:45 (UTC) on July 7th, 2008. I am not trying to discourage you from editing. In fact, once the block has expired, I encourage you to continue to add to our articles the obvious expertise you have on the subject; however, this will not be encouraged if it comes along with the attitude that you have been displaying. No matter what an editors knowledge level on a particular subject is, is it not worth the decay of the community that we are working so very hard to establish among Grand Theft Wiki editors.

"being a cocksucker":

Due to the fact that this doesn't specify exactly what your complaint is, I will have to rehash the events that took place:

Two or three days ago (It must be the difference in time zones that's causing me to see both "2 days ago" and "3 days ago"), you sent a board message to MasterChief117 that stated, "Aircraft is MY section. Lay off. I omitted the CH-53 from the likeness section because A), obvious aesthetic discrepancies, and B) because it has three engines, while the H-92, H-47, and Cargobob all have 2."

Eganio then sent you a board message that stated, "Just to let you know, nothing on this wiki is anyone's particular domain. In the future, please be more respectful to other editors, and DO NOT presume authority over anyone."

Your response to this was, "My authority is validated by my knowledge on the subject."

Eganio responded with a message that stated, "Yes, you seem very knowledgeable on the subject, but my point is that does not entitle you to presume that you automatically know better than everyone else. Discussion is a key aspect of making a wiki run smoothly because, after all, anyone can edit here. I ask again, please treat your fellow editors with the respect you expect others to afford you. If you feel you possess a better understanding of a particular subject, you need to discuss it first with other editors that might disagree with you, and give them the opportunity to see your point of view. DO NOT act as if you are the ultimate authority. No one here is."

You, responded with, "DO NOT tell me how to act, buddy."

The problem with this, as I stated above, is that Eganio not only can suggest "how to act", being an administrator, he is actually expected to. I do not see how any of these comments show he was "being a cocksucker".

"abusing his power":

In what way was Eganio abusing his powers? I did not notice one comment in which Eganio seemed to be doing so.

"perhaps better selection of admins is necessary":

I am sorry you feel this way, and I hope my explanations have eased your concerns regarding my suitability for the position. If after this block has expired, you still feel the same way, I invite you to begin a civil conversation to see if any other editors feel the same way.

Please do not hesitate to let me know if you have any other concerns. --GuildKnightTalk2me 03:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk Pages

Hi there. Just wanted to point out that "Talk" pages are the best place to discuss an article. For example, if discussing the AT400, discuss it on Talk:AT400 rather than the board or talk page of an individual user. This keeps all the discussion together (rather than swapping between your board and their board); and means that anyone else can join in the discussion. Makes life easier for everyone, and let more people help out. Also, if you explain on the talk page why you're making a change, then people can just read that and know, rather than having to ask you. Then if they disagree, they can discuss it right there, on the same page, right next to the main article. Makes things a lot simpler for everyone. Thanks - Gboyerstalk 03:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Along these lines, I have protected the Rustler article, as edit warring has resumed, despite the fact that the article was previously protected for the same reason. Please discuss design aspects of the plane on the talk page, as there may very well be other editors who would like to add their points of view. Because there seem to be many things in contention, it is best to discuss them, rather than revert each other's edits, which gets us nowhere. Our goal is to improve the wiki, which must involve discussion and consensus, especially on such contentious issues. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. EganioTalk 23:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Debate

Hi, Sukhoi-35BM. This is in response to the debate in which you and MetaCracken were engaging on my talk page. You have been asked to do this before, and I will ask again: please discuss things on the appropriate talk pages rather than autonomously reverting the edits other users have made. As I have said before, you seem very knowledgeable when it comes to aircraft, and your edits are truly appreciated. However, as I have also said, your knowledge does not grant you ultimate authority on this wiki over anything and everything pertaining to aircraft. Whether you recognize it or not, you are a member of a community of editors, all here for the same purpose: to improve Grand Theft Wiki. This means you should not only assume good faith of your fellow editors, but you should definitely discuss edits with them, rather than positioning yourself as an authority, especially when other editors feel as strongly as you do about the content.

Because the aforementioned community is based on a collaborative approach to improving and maintaining the wiki, it does none of us any good to argue and accuse each other of adding "irrelevant" information. One person's minor detail is another person's major aspect, please realize. Furthermore, it is not up to one editor to decide what to include/exclude from any given article. It is up to the community to decide that...that having been said, the only way to garner a community perspective is to discuss things on talk pages attached to the articles themselves, where everyone can add their perspective.

I realize that you are endeavoring to keep the wiki "clean" of useless information, and I applaud you for that, but please remember that speculation is very welcomed here, as is detail. We strive to offer as much information as possible to our readers. Sometimes that information may seem ancillary and even irrelevant to some, but the fact that it may not seem that way to others is why we must discuss things before making the "final edit", so to speak. EganioTalk 21:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

WS 05:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)What about bad grammar? Should I call a conference for punctuation?

Grammar is certainly something that should be corrected where necessary. However, the very reason I left you the above message was not due to issues over grammatical corrections. Rather, the issue at hand is, and continues to be, a lack of composure when dealing with conflict over edits. You will disagree with other editors...it is inevitable. It is the manner in which you handle your disagreements that is in need of adjustment. Again, I applaud you for your contributions. Just please keep in mind that we are a community, and being a member of a such a community begs a more delicate approach to dealing with other editors. Remember, as knowledgeable as you obviously are, aircraft is not specifically yours. Give other people the chance to defend what you find to be irrelevant or incorrect before you remove it in its entirety. Don't you expect other editors to afford you the same courtesy? EganioTalk 09:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No, a stranger to sarcasm I am not, and your sardonic reply did not go unnoticed. However, I don't think this is the time or place to be sarcastic, considering the circumstances, which is why I did not respond directly to your petulance. If you're attempting to approach this with a sense of humor, that's great...I just hope you will apply the same sense of humor to your future dealings with MetaCracken and other editors. EganioTalk 20:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Being a moderator does not give you a license to be pretentious.

Signing Posts

Hello! Just as a quick reminder, you can sign your posts on talk pages by adding four tildes to the end of your post: ~~~~. Happy editing! :-)